TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndrashekhara Bharathi, Adv., Mrs. Priyanka Das, Adv., Mr. Aman Jha, Adv., Ms. Sangeeta Singh, Adv. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Jay Kansara, Adv., Mr. Aman Raj Gandhi, AOR, Ms. Saloni Kumar, Adv., Mr. Chaitanya Sharma, Adv., Ms. Disha Jham, Adv. ORDER 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. These three appeals arise from three writ petitions filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court [The High Court] at Indore by three separate petitioners. Writ Petition No. 15169 of 2024 was filed by Sequel Logistics Private Limited; Writ Petition No.6850 of 2024 was filed by Amit Sharma and Writ Petition No.6810 of 2024 was filed by Arihant Jewelers. 4. By the impugned order dated 18.08.2025, all three writ peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owing the SOP, the seizure was reported to the Revenue (i.e., the Income Tax Department). On receipt of report about the seizure, Revenue issued summons to Amit Sharma under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') and recorded his statement. Thereafter, Revenue requisitioned the seized articles under Section 132A(1)(c) of the Act. 7. During the inquiry, Amit Sharma made a statement that the consigned articles did not belong to him and those were of different consignors who had appointed Sequel Logistics as a courier for transport to different consignees. However, surprisingly, despite documents being there to corroborate Amit Sharma's statement, Revenue proceeded to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act to Amit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tment was not in consonance with law and in gross violation of the SOP. Moreover, the documents brought on record and the statement made in the pleadings indicated that those goods were neither liable to be seized nor liable to be detained by SST. 11. As regards issue No. 2, the High Court took the view that Amit Sharma was merely an employee of the courier and he had not claimed ownership of the consignments, therefore, proceedings under Section 148 of the Act initiated against him by presuming him to be owner of the goods were manifestly arbitrary and as such liable to be quashed. 12. On issue No. 3, the High Court found Arihant Jewelers entitled to get back the jewelry articles that was claimed by it. 13. Aggrieved by the order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion but to release those goods to the person from whom seizure was made. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court does not call for any interference. Moreover, the High Court has not restrained the Income Tax Department from proceeding under Section 148 of the Act against such person(s) who in its opinion may have evaded tax or failed to disclose income. 16. We have accorded due consideration to the rival submissions and have perused the materials available on record. In our view, as far as the findings of the High Court on issue Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, firstly, there is no serious challenge by the Revenue to those findings and, secondly, the seizure was made in violation of the SOP in force while the Model Code of Conduct was in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould have been released in favour of Arihant Jewelers by addressing its claim of ownership. Accordingly, on behalf of Revenue, it is submitted that Writ Petition No.6810 of 2024 filed by Arihant Jewelers was liable to be dismissed. 18. On behalf of Arihant Jewelers, it has been submitted that though there might be some discrepancy in the number of consignments claimed and the number of consignments seized i.e., that were to be delivered to Arihant Jewelers, the fact remains that there is no dispute raised by the courier i.e., Sequel Logistics regarding ownership of Arihant Jewelers in respect of those consignments. Moreover, the person from whom seizure was made had not disputed the ownership and entitlement of Arihant Jewelers. In such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sequel Logistics had also prayed for their release in its favour. Therefore, in our view, the operative portion of the impugned order requires modification to the extent indicated below. In place of the direction of the High Court that all three writ petitions shall stand allowed, only Writ Petition Nos.15169 of 2024 and 6850 of 2024 filed by Sequel Logistics Private Limited and Amit Sharma, respectively, would stand allowed and Writ Petition No.6810 of 2024 filed by Arihant Jewelers shall stand dismissed as not maintainable. This we say so because under the SOP those seized articles were liable to be returned to only that person from whom they were seized. Besides, Arihant Jewelers claim of ownership ought not to have been addressed as the....